[Amended 6-17-2008]
The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) System has been designed to provide a rational process for assisting local officials in making farmland conversion decisions through the local zoning process. The system will be used by the staff of McLean County, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the McLean County Soil and Water Conservation District when reporting to local hearing bodies and elected officials concerning petitions to allow the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The system contains two separate but related reports as follows:
A. 
Land evaluation: an evaluation of soil properties and their relative desirability for agricultural use (100 points maximum); and
B. 
Site assessment: an assessment of other factors relating to the site that should be considered before farmland is converted to other uses (200 points maximum).
[Amended 6-17-2008]
The system has been designed to provide for the assignment of a maximum of 300 points, which would indicate maintaining land for agricultural use, to zero points, which would indicate conversion of land to other uses is acceptable. The following breakdown should be used in evaluating land for rezoning from agriculture to other nonagricultural related uses. The higher the point value the more viable is the site for agricultural retention.
Number of Points
Viability for Agricultural Retention
230 and above
Very high for agricultural land protection
220 through 229
Moderate for agricultural land protection
219 and below
Low for agricultural land protection
The factors to be considered and the points assigned to each factor are listed below:
A. 
Land evaluation. The land evaluation section of the system is designed to provide an average site value based on a maximum number of 100 points. This value is determined by:
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(1) 
Grouping all soils in McLean County into one of seven soil groups by using a soil capability class, productivity index and a prime, important, or not prime farmland designation (see §§ 350-88 and 350-89); and
(2) 
Calculating a relative value of each soil group by dividing the highest productivity index of the groups found in the County into the productivity index for each soil group (see § 350-89).
(3) 
The average site value is then calculated in accordance with the following example:
Soil Group
Relative Value
Number of Acres in Site
Product of Relative Value
1
100
4
400
2
95
8
760
3
84
12
1,008
4
5
6
7
Totals
24
2,168
(4) 
Formula.
Product of Relative Value
Acres in Site
=
Average Site Value
2,168
24
=
90.33
B. 
Site assessment.
(1) 
The agricultural economic viability of a site cannot be measured in isolation from existing and impending land use needs of McLean County. The site assessment process provides a system for identifying important factors other than soils that affect the economic viability of a site for agricultural uses.
(2) 
This section describes each of 14 site assessment factors to be considered when a change to another land use is proposed in an area zoned A Agriculture under the provisions of this chapter.
(a) 
The 14 site assessment factors are grouped into the following three major areas of consideration:
[1] 
Location and land use considerations;
[2] 
Public policy considerations; and
[3] 
Public service and community facility considerations.
(b) 
Based upon current land use data, land use regulations, site inspection and other pertinent information, a point value is determined by analyzing each site assessment factor and selecting a number value that best reflects the quality of the property in question.
C. 
Other considerations. The National Flood Insurance Program and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), shall be considered, as shall any adopted local land resource management plan, when assigning points to LESA factors.
A. 
Location and land use considerations.
(1) 
Land area in an agricultural use within one mile of the site.
Percentage
Points Assigned
90% to 100%
15
75% to 89%
12
50% to 74%
9
25% to 49%
6
10% to 24%
3
0% to 9%
0
(a) 
This factor is a major indicator of the agricultural character of an area. Areas in the County that are dominated by agricultural uses are generally more viable for farm purposes. The definition of "agricultural land uses" should be interpreted to mean all agricultural and related uses that can be considered to be part of the farm operation. This would include farmland (cropland), pasture lands, or timberlands, whether or not in current production, and farm residences, barns, and outbuildings.
(b) 
The one-mile area of consideration for this factor was selected because, in McLean County, a one-mile radius is a reasonable and manageable area when analyzing the land use and overall characteristics of the area.
(c) 
Since this factor is a major indicator of the agricultural character of an area, it has a maximum value of 15 points.
(2) 
Land in an agricultural use adjacent to the site.
Percentage of Total Frontage
Points Assigned
90% to 100%
20
75% to 89%
16
50% to 74%
12
25% to 49%
8
10% to 24%
4
0% to 9%
0
(a) 
In order to limit potential nuisance complaints and other forms of conflict, preexisting adjacent land uses should be evaluated in all cases. Since this factor is also a major indicator of the agricultural character of an area, it has a maximum value of 20 points.
(3) 
Size of the site to be converted.
Acreage
Points Assigned
20 or more
20
10 to 20
15
5 to 10
10
3 to 5
5
0 to 3
0
(a) 
This factor recognizes that the size of the parcel of land has an impact on the site's viability for agricultural purposes.
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 20 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
B. 
Public policy considerations.
(1) 
Land area zoned for agricultural use within one mile of the site.
Percentage
Points Assigned
90% to 100%
15
74% to 89%
12
50% to 74%
9
25% to 49%
6
10% to 24%
3
0% to 9%
0
(a) 
This factor is important since zoning regulations derive from the police power. When land is zoned other than A Agriculture District, the potential exists for nonagricultural uses which may be incompatible with agriculture. The one-mile radius is a reasonable and manageable area in McLean County when analyzing the land use and overall characteristics of the area.
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 15 points.
(2) 
Land area zoned for agricultural use adjacent to the site (percentage of site boundary).
Percentage
Points Assigned
90% to 100%
20
74% to 89%
16
50% to 74%
12
25% to 49%
8
10% to 24%
4
0% to 9%
0
(a) 
This factor is important because when land in the vicinity of the site is zoned other than A Agriculture District, the potential exists for nonagricultural uses which may be incompatible with agriculture.
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 20 points.
(3) 
Land area adjacent to the site proposed for agricultural use on the Land Use Plan.
Percentage
Points Assigned
90% to 100%
20
74% to 89%
17
50% to 74%
12
25% to 49%
8
10% to 24%
4
0% to 9%
0
(a) 
This factor is important because the Land Use Plan adopted by the County Board constitutes the County's policy regarding the preservation of prime farmland for agricultural use and the identification of other areas for residential, commercial, industrial use and other nonagricultural uses.
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 20 points.
(4) 
Availability of other development sites in the vicinity of the site.
Available Sites
Points Assigned
Other properly zoned sites available
10
Limited other sites available
6
No other sites available
0
(a) 
This factor can be used for site comparison where it may be essential to convert land to a nonagricultural use. Often, with a little investigation, sites for development on less-productive agricultural land can be identified as alternatives. The total points assigned to one site can be compared with the total points determined for any number of other sites.
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 10 points.
(5) 
Environmental considerations (flood hazards, wetlands, aquifer recharge area, wild life habitat and unique community values).
Impact
Points Assigned
Major negative impact
10
Substantial negative impact
6
Minor negative impact
2
No negative impact
0
(a) 
This factor addresses whether the proposed use or zoning change will have impact on neighboring properties from surface runoffs. This factor is also concerned with environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains and wetlands and takes into account whether reasonable provisions have been made to collect and divert surface runoff in order to reduce the likelihood of damage to adjoining properties. The selection and design of measures will depend on varying local conditions such as soils, topography, physical features and the extent of impervious surface. Refer to the McLean County Zoning Ordinance for the range of permitted uses in the proposed zoning district. The McLean County Regional Comprehensive Plan and the County Greenways Regional Plan should provide guidance for this section.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 10 points.
C. 
Public service and community facility considerations.
(1) 
Access to adequate transportation.
Points Assigned
(1)
Frontage on a County highway, a township road, or a city street building to rural standards
Poor surface condition and pavement width of less than 22 feet
20
Good surface condition and a pavement width of less than 22 feet
12
Poor surface condition and pavement width of more than 22 feet
9
Good surface condition and pavement width of more than 22 feet
6
(2)
Frontage on a city collector street built to urban standards
3
(3)
Frontage on a city major street built to urban standards
0
(a) 
Access to transportation is a consideration in the location of all types of uses. The location of industrial, commercial, and residential uses within one mile of existing municipalities results in a more efficient movement of goods and people. The location of nonagricultural uses along rural roads may necessitate the upgrading and widening of rural roads, which results in a further loss of farmland. High-volume/high-speed traffic may not be compatible with agricultural uses.
(b) 
The type of road providing access to a site, whether existing or to be provided by a developer, and the availability of transportation modes are major factors in determining suitability of the planned use or proposed rezoning.
(c) 
The factor has been assigned a maximum value of 20 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(2) 
Availability of a public sanitary sewer system.
Availability of System
Points Assigned
Sewer system not available
10
Sewer system more than 1,500 feet from site
8
Sewer system between 750 feet and 1,500 feet from site
6
Sewer system over 750 feet from site
4
Sewer system less than 750 feet from site
2
Sewer system available at site
0
(a) 
The availability to a site of a central sewer system with sufficient capacity encourages growth and reduces the long-term viability of a site for agriculture. According to the Illinois Private Sewage Disposal Act and Code, "new or renovated private sewage disposal systems shall not be approved where a public sanitary sewer is located within 200 feet of the property and is available for connection."
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 10 points.
(3) 
Availability of a public water system.
Availability of System
Points Assigned
Public system not available
10
System more than 1,500 feet from site
8
System between 750 feet and 1,500 feet from site
6
System over 750 feet from site
4
System less than 750 feet from site
2
System available at site
0
(a) 
This factor recognizes that the existence of a central water system encourages growth and reduces the long-term viability of a site for agriculture. As a central water system is extended into an agricultural area, the character of the area may change and more nonagricultural development occur.
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 10 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(4) 
Public protection classification (fire insurance rating).
Classification
Points Assigned
9 and 10
10
8
8
7
6
6
4
5
2
1 through 4
0
(a) 
Fire protection requires a combination of equipment, manpower, and availability and supply of water. This factor is also related to distance between a fire station and proposed development. Fire insurance ratings in McLean County are determined by the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, published by the Insurance Services Office of Illinois, 101 North Wacker Street, Chicago, IL 60606. These ratings are based on the fire-fighting capability of the rural fire protection districts serving the unincorporated areas of McLean County and are listed in § 350-90.
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 10 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(5) 
Availability of elementary school space.
Distance from Site
Points Assigned
Over 30 minutes from site
10
15 minutes to 30 minutes from site
6
Less than 15 minutes from site
2
Walking distance of site
0
(a) 
Availability of elementary school space allows new students to be accommodated without increasing the cost of public education to the entire community. The lack of elementary school space is a signal that the school system is not able to keep up with the growth and student overcrowding may be caused by any further development. This factor is important when reviewing a Zoning Map amendment or a site development proposal that will result in an increase in the school population.
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 10 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
(6) 
Distance to shopping and employment centers.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
Distance
(miles)
Points Assigned
5 and over
10
3 to 5
8
2 to 3
6
1 to 2
4
1/2 to 1
2
Less than 1/2
0
(a) 
A site near existing shopping and employment centers is more viable for urban development than a site located many miles from urban areas. Because urban uses are generally considered to be incompatible with agricultural pursuits, the impact on agricultural and rural areas will be minimized when development occurs close to established urban development.
(b) 
This factor has been assigned a maximum value of 10 points.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
AGRICULTURAL LAND
Land in farms regularly used for agricultural production. The term includes all land devoted to crop or livestock enterprises, for example, the farmstead lands, drainage ditches, water supply, cropland, pasture land, or timberland (whether or not in current production), and grazing land of every kind in farms.
AGRICULTURE
The devotion of land to the growing of farm or truck garden crops, horticulture, viticulture or pasturage as a principal use, together with accessory animal and poultry husbandry, dairying, apiculture and other common accessory uses, including farm dwellings as defined herein and other buildings and structures for agricultural purposes upon such land.
CAPABILITY CLASS
Broad groupings of soil mapping units that have similar potentials and/or limitations and hazards. These classes are useful as a means of introducing the map users to more detailed information on a soils map. The classes show the location, amount and general suitability of the soils for agricultural use. The national capability classification shows soils groupings in eight classes:
[Amended 6-17-2008]
A. 
CLASS 1Soils have slight limitations that restrict their use.
B. 
CLASS 2Soils have moderate limitations that restrict the choice of plants or require moderate conservation practices.
C. 
CLASS 3Soils have severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.
D. 
CLASS 4Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.
E. 
CLASS 5Soils are subject to little or no erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat.
F. 
CLASS 6Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat.
G. 
CLASS 7Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife habitat.
H. 
CLASS 8Soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreational purposes, wildlife habitat, watershed, or aesthetic purposes.
FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
This land is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage and oilseed crops. Generally, additional farmland and that economically produce high yields or crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable.
PRIME FARMLAND
Land that is best suited to food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It may be cropland, pasture, woodland, or other land, but it is not urban and built-up land or water areas. It either is used for food or fiber or is available for those uses. The soil qualities, growing season, and moisture supply are those needed for a well-managed soil economically to produce a sustained high yield of crops. Prime farmland produces the highest yields with minimum inputs of energy and economic resources, and farming it results in the least damage to the environment. Prime farmland has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture from precipitation or irrigation. The temperature and growing season are favorable. The level of acidity or alkalinity is acceptable. Prime farmland has few or no rocks and is permeable to water and air. It is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for long periods and is not frequently flooded during the growing season. The slope ranges mainly from 0% to 6%.
PRIME FARMLAND CLASSIFICATION
A. 
PRIMEAll areas are prime farmland.
B. 
PRIME 2Areas are prime farmland where drained.
C. 
PRIME 5Areas are prime where drained and protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season.
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
Productivity indexes for grain crops express the estimated yields of the major grain crops as a percentage of the average yields obtained under basic management. Soil productivity is strongly influenced by the capacity of a soil to supply the nutrient and soil-stored water needs of a growing crop in a given climate. Source: Soil Productivity in Illinois, Optimum Crop, Pasture, and Forestry Productivity Ratings for Illinois Soils, Bulletin 811, August 2000, University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Office.
[Amended 6-17-2008]
Group
Mapping Unit Symbol
Mapping Unit Name
Land Capability Class
Productivity Index
Prime Important Farmland
LE Group 1; Ag Value: 100; Acres: 141,665; Percent of County Land: 18.72%
1
51A
Muscatune silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
147
Prime
1
154A
Flanagan silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
144
Prime
1
902A
Ipava-Sable complex, 0% to 2% slopes
1
143
Prime 2
1
198A
Elburn silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
143
Prime
1
43A
Ipava silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
142
Prime
1
199A
Plano silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
142
Prime
1
59A
Lisbon silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
141
Prime
1
86A
Osco silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
141
Prime
1
149A
Brenton silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
141
Prime
1
715A
Arrowsmith silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
140
Prime
LE Group 2; Ag Value: 95; Acres: 288,104; Percent of County Land: 38.06%
2
199B
Plano silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
141
Prime
2
86B
Osco silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
140
Prime
2
171B
Catlin silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
137
Prime
2
152A
Drummer silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
144
Prime 2
2
721A
Drummer and Elpaso silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
144
Prime 2
2
68A
Sable silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
143
Prime 2
2
8077A
Huntsville silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally flooded
2w
143
Prime
2
8451A
Lawson silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally flooded
2w
140
Prime
2
8107A
Sawmill silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally flooded
2w
139
Prime 2
2
8074A
Radford silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally flooded
2w
136
Prime
2
293A
Andres silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
135
Prime
2
893B
Catlin-Saybrook silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
135
Prime
2
199B2
Plano silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
135
Prime
2
663A
Clare silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
134
Prime
2
213A
Normal silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
133
Prime
2
481A
Raub silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
133
Prime
2
61A
Atterberry silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
132
Prime 2
2
667A
Kaneville silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
128
Prime
2
343A
Kane silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
125
Prime
2
567A
Elkhart silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
125
Prime
2
236A
Sabina silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
1
122
Prime
LE Group 3; Ag Value: 84; Acres: 274,967; Percent of County Land: 36.33%
3
244A
Hartsburg silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
134
Prime 2
3
8073A
Ross loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally flooded
2w
134
Prime
3
86B2
Osco silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
134
Prime
3
67A
Harpster silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
133
Prime 2
3
8720A
Aetna silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes, occasionally flooded
2w
131
Prime 2
3
145B
Saybrook silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
130
Prime
3
171B2
Catlin silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
131
Prime
3
294B
Symerton silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
130
Prime
3
56B2
Dana silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
129
Prime
3
125A
Selma loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
129
Prime 2
3
148B2
Proctor silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
128
Prime
3
614B
Chenoa silty clay loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
128
Prime
3
667B
Kaneville silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
127
Prime
3
541B2
Graymont silt loam 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
127
Prime
3
232A
Ashkum silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
127
Prime 2
3
145B2
Saybrook silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
125
Prime
3
146A
Elliot silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
125
Prime
3
3107A
Sawmill silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes, frequently flooded
3w
125
Prime 5
3
567B
Elkhart silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
124
Prime
3
272A
Edgington silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
124
Prime 2
3
330A
Peotone silty clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
3w
123
Prime 2
3
614B2
Chenoa silty clay loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
123
Prime
3
687B2
Penfield loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
123
Prime
3
496A
Fincastle silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
121
Prime 2
3
233B
Birkbeck silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes
2e
121
Prime
3
567B2
Elkhart silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
119
Prime
3
290A
Warsaw loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2s
119
Prime
3
17A
Keomah silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes
2w
119
Prime 2
3
233B2
Birkbeck silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
116
Prime
3
279B2
Rozetta silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
114
Prime
3
622B2
Wyanet silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
114
Prime
3
134B2
Camden silt loam. 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
113
Prime
3
290B2
Warsaw loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
113
Prime
3
60B2
La Rose silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
112
Prime
3
91B2
Swygert silty clay loam, 2% to 4% slopes, eroded
2e
112
Prime
3
223B2
Varna silt loam, 2% to 4% slopes, eroded
2e
110
Prime
3
322B2
Russell silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
110
Prime
3
27B2
Miami silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
106
Prime
3
193B2
Mayville silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
105
Prime
3
327B2
Fox silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
2e
104
Prime
LE Group 4; Ag Value: 80; Acres: 32,231; Percent of County Land: 4.26%
4
171C2
Catlin silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
128
Important
4
56C2
Dana silty clay loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
126
Important
4
148C2
Proctor silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
126
Important
4
145C2
Saybrook silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
123
Important
4
687C2
Penfield loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
121
Important
4
233C2
Birkbeck silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
113
Important
4
622C2
Wyanet silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
112
Important
4
134C2
Camden silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
111
Important
4
60C2
La Rose silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
110
Important
4
223C2
Varna silty clay loam, 4% to 6% slopes, eroded
3e
108
Important
4
322C2
Russell silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
108
Important
4
27C2
Miami silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
104
Important
4
193C2
Mayville silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
102
Important
4
327C2
Fox silt loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
101
Important
LE Group 5; Ag Value: 69; Acres: 10,301; Percent of County Land: 1.36%
5
60D2
LaRose silt loam, 10% to 18% slopes, eroded
4e
105
Important
5
570D2
Martinsville silt loam, 10% to 18% slopes, eroded
4e
101
Important
5
27D2
Miami silt loam, 10% to 18% slopes, eroded
4e
100
Important
5
224C2
Strawn loam, 5% to 10% slopes, eroded
3e
98
Important
5
318B2
Lorenzo silt loam, 2% to 5% slopes, eroded
3s
98
Important
5
964D
Miami and Hennepin soils, 10% to 18% slopes
4e
90
Important
LE Group 6; Ag Value: 41; Acres: 3,911; Percent of County Land: 0.52%
6
964F
Miami and Hennepin soils, 18% to 35% slopes
6e
67
Not Prime
6
224G
Strawn loam, 35% to 60% slopes
7e
50
Not Prime
LE Group 7; Ag Value: 0; Acres: 5,729; Percent of County Land: 0.76%
7
533
Urban land
8
0
Not Prime
7
802B
Orthents, loamy, undulating
8
0
Not Prime
7
865
Pits, gravel
8
0
Not Prime
Fire Protection Agencies Serving Rural McLean County
Fire Insurance Rating
1.
Allin Township Fire Protection District
9
2.
Bellflower Fire Protection District
9
3.
Bloomington Township Fire Protection District
9
4.
Carlock Fire Protection District
9
5.
Chenoa Fire Protection District
9
6.
Congerville Fire Protection District
9
7.
Dale Township Fire Protection District
9
8.
Downs Community Fire Protect District
9
9.
Farmer City Fire Protection District
9
10.
LeRoy Community Fire Protection District
7
11.
Lexington Community Fire Protection District
7
12.
Mount Hope Fire Protection District
8*; 9**
13.
Northern Piat County Fire Protection District
9
14.
Octavia Fire Protection District
9
15.
Randolph Township Fire Protection District
9
16.
Saybrook-Arrowsmith Fire Protection District
8*; 9**
17.
Gridley Fire Protection District
8*; 9**
18.
Hudson Community Fire Protection District
8
19.
Ellsworth Fire Protection District
9
20.
Danvers Community Fire Protection District
8
21.
Towanda Community Fire Protection District
9
22.
El Paso Fire Protection District
8*; 9**
23.
Sullivant Community Fire Protection District
9
24.
Forrest-Strawn-Wing Fire Protection District
9
25.
Pontiac Rural Fire Protection District
9
26.
Wapella Community Fire Protection District
8
27.
Gibson City Fire Protection District
6
28.
Armington Fire Protection District
9
29.
Atlanta Fire Protection District
8
30.
Little Mackinaw Fire Protection District
9
31.
Mackinaw Fire Protection District
8
32.
Sangamon Valley Fire Protection District
8*; 9**
NOTES:
*
Fire insurance rating for residential buildings
**
Fire insurance rating for commercial and industrial buildings